Somewhat unsatisfied with the conclusion of a seminar and in a fit of madness, I decided to post my thoughts on the course forum, which I quote below:
Hi, people. I'm sure all of us had our discussions on this topic in our seminars, where, unfortunately, there wasn't much time to get more in-depth. I'm fairly interested in this topic, so I just want to (hopefully) continue those discussions a little by adding a few thoughts. I think the internet has the potential to be the source of a new Habermasian public sphere, but not in its entirety.
In my seminar group, we were drawn into a debate with arguments for and against the internet as a new public sphere, and I don't think that does the complex issue justice. From a Habermasian perspective, I don't think the internet can in itself become a new public sphere. I believe this is because a Kantian approach grounds rationality in humanity; that is to say, the basis of rationality is found in our ability as persons to apprehend rational concepts and arguments (i.e. our having practical reason). In turn, public discourse is grounded on rationality and can only be carried out if we let our rationality take precedence and thereby respect one another as rational beings, which is where the equality (or non-relevance) of status comes in - what matters is not our background and individual social status, but our universal capacity to reason.
To see public discourse as purely a contest of disembodied arguments is, I think, to miss the point a little. The human aspect is highly important because our capacity to reason is also what makes us able to be rationally persuaded by others and thereby reach a consensus. For this we need some kind of reciprocity, the ability to give each other credit for being right where it is appropriate. The problem with the internet is that, as a depersonalised community that people can opt in and out of easily and where individuals can hide behind a veil of anonymity, it does not lend itself to the kind of reciprocity needed for rational debate. Instead, people tend to become personifications of their arguments and are thus objectified. Internet debates are so fragmented and pointless because consensus is something that is reached by persons, not by objects or strawmen on which are pinned various viewpoints and arguments.
As such, although the internet does give people a platform for expressing their views with less of an eye to status and negative real-life consequences, it also tends to throw out the human (in the Kantian sense) aspect of discourse. Thus, I think there are a few criteria that must be satisfied before a new public sphere can be constituted from the internet:
1) Any proper debate must be moderated to ensure that the participants respect each other.
2) There must be some way for the participants to maintain credibility so that they would respect each other and no one's views would simply be dismissed.
3) There must be regularity, both of participants and of debate, since reciprocity is not achieved in one-off engagements but in a continuous relationship.
There are probably more, but these are what I can think of for now.
This way, a new public sphere can come from within the internet, even though the internet itself cannot be from my understanding of Habermas' theory.
So, will we show the rational efficacy of the internet and debate a little more on this topic?
Fittingly enough, no one responded. From this experience, I can make two observations: First, the Internet can't seem to hold a rational debate to save itself, even within a university environment. Second, professors don't tend to care much for contributions if those do not fall neatly within the programme.
